Five changes to improve Rugby’s judicial process

Baldwid October 15, 2012 7

Following the discussion about the judicial process with SANZAR CEO Greg Peters on last week’s Podslam, I dug out a paper that I’d written outlining some changes I believe could improve it. Here are the guts of that paper.

It’s not a rugby article without Quade in it

Commenting on an incident which saw Queensland Reds and Wallabies star Quade Cooper charged for a questionable high tackle, highly respected former Wallaby Tim Horan noted that ‘judicial processes need to be above reproach, and teams and…fans require clarity and consistency at all times’.

Mr Horan’s sagacious reflection is indicative of a growing chorus of criticism leveled at Rugby Unions judicial process, in particular its administration by South African, New Zealand and Australian Rugby (SANZAR). Much like the rules of the sport which are open to considerable variances of subjective interpretation, the disparate nature of player sanctions and perceptions of an inadequate process reflect a judicial process struggling to rationalize its inconsistencies.

Rugby Union’s Judicial Process

As Rugby Union’s governing body, the IRB is tasked with creation and management of the rules and regulations that oversee the judicial process. The regulations provide the basis for determining the appropriate sanctions, rules governing the operation of judicial proceedings and guidelines that determine the participants in the process.

As the administrators of the premier professional tournaments in the southern hemisphere, SANZAR is permitted to implement suitable adjustments to the judicial process for practical purposes, provided the introduction of rules or procedures do not conflict with the ‘core principles’ of Regulation 17. In spite of these rules, questions have arisen as to the efficacy of the current regulatory provisions and the effectiveness of SANZAR’s administration of the judicial process given considerable variances in sanctions.

Recommendations

The stated goal of the IRB in relation to the judicial process is the achievement of consistency and uniformity in the determination of the seriousness of foul play and the administration of subsequent discipline, ensuring that the image and reputation of the sport is not adversely affected. The irony however is that accomplishment of this goal is unattainable under the current regulatory system.

Changes must be made so that offences are identified and classified, with specific values allocated to not only each offence, but each level of seriousness with which the offence was committed. Although the IRB’s regulations outline such measures, the current process allows for determination of the seriousness of an offence and the appropriate penalty in a subjective manner, determinative on the understanding and subjective opinion of the decision maker.

1. Learn from other codes

For the judicial process to attain an increased measure of credibility, objectivity must be the goal. Adopting a points based punitive system, as used in the NRL and AFL would provide a means of achieving an increased level of objectivity. The determination of an appropriate sanction is ascertained by a matrix that applies a set standard without variation in all cases, rather than reliance on the determination of one person whose judgments may vary. Despite criticisms of a points system, its implementation removes subjective elements of the judicial process thereby minimizing instances of disparate sanctions. Situations where one player can be suspended for a tackle for 5 weeks that fails to attract a sanction in another match, will be considerably reduced as the determination of the appropriate penalty period is objectively determined.

2. Appoint panels

In addition to this change the IRB must mandate the use of a judicial panel. A change to a three man panel would implement a ‘quasi-vetting’ process whereby judicial officers decisions are scrutinized and de-facto vetted on account of the need for a majority, which would likely result in a reduction in appeals and enhance the credibility of the judicial process. In relation to the Southern Hemisphere game, SANZAR must mandate the use of a judicial panel comprising three members, one a legally trained member to chair the proceedings, the second a former player at a professional level who is of reputable standing in the game and the third an officer from each country appointed by SANZAR as a specialist judicial officer who participates in judicial proceedings for all matches as a neutral member. As the majority of tribunals are held via teleconference or video conference online, such a process would not be an issue and would certainly improve the process.

3. Streamline

The current process also contains superfluous levels of governance, with an on field incident of foul play possibly passing through multiple levels of administration. A change to a simpler Match Review Committee tasked with reviewing all games and bringing charges before a Judicial Panel, would ensure a greater level of consistency by entrusting responsibility for the management of the judicial process, to two distinct groups. The Match Review Committee would assesses every game using the same criteria, approaching their task with the same mindset. Whilst not completely removing the subjective element of the judicial process, such action would increase the objective nature of the process, leading to increased consistency in citing and sanctioning.

4. Consistency

SANZAR could also instigate an internal agreement that addresses the often inexplicably strong sanctions for minor offences and weak sanctions for more serious offences. Such an agreement could ensure that intentional acts of foul play such as head-butting are more severely and appropriately punished as inconsistencies of this nature ultimately call into question the competency and credibility of judicial processes.

5. Transparency

SANZAR must also improve its transparency, as its tournament specific guidelines are not publicly promulgated which is in contrast to the AFL who readily and professionally publish information on its judicial process. A transparent, well documented system would alleviate many of the concerns as to the inconsistent nature of the judiciary.

Conclusion

Despite operational constraints, SANZAR has made concerted efforts at improving their administration of the judicial process in 2012 such as through the introduction of new disciplinary cards, however it is clear that their still exists considerable work to be done by both the IRB and SANZAR. While any process with human involvement will contain elements of disparity, the adoption of a judicial process modeled on the AFL’s would inevitably lead to a competent, credible and most importantly consistent process as the human element is mitigated through the use of objective guidelines.

What do you reckon my learned colleague – would these changes improve the process?

TAGS » Opinion, slide

POSTED IN » Rugby

About the author: Baldwid View all posts by Baldwid

Discussion »

suckerforred

I think that the implementation of a Match Review Panel is long over due. We can all remember the week this year where one tip tackle got a 5 week suspension yet two equally (possibily more) serious tackles went entirely unreported.

As you said anything with human involvement is going to involve a certain degree of subjectivity, but improvements can be made.
Baldwin

I think that’s the crucial aspect of the process SFR – accepting that the human element exists and that it will lead to errors. The onus is on the rule makers to accept that fact moving forward, so that a process that minimizes that level involvement is adopted. Could not agree more about the MRC, have a look at the AFL’s website they have a brilliant setup!
Patrick

Agree entirely, great to see people putting this kind of thing forward.
Dirty Socks

The problem is not too many people really understand the Laws and that especially goes for refs and players. We have as an example the crazy statement by Andre Watson when he retired having refereed two RWC finals, that he never understood scrumaging and the front rows in particular. That lack of knowledge almost cost England a RWC.

Perhaps a Match Review Panel (mrp) might sort this out at SANZAR level, but we now have a citing commissioner and how does he differ from a mrp.

There are quite substantial IRB guidlines for a judicary to follow. In some cases they are contradictory and in other cases they are opaque. Judicaries in my experience work closely to them and interprete as best they can.

Every person who comes before a judiciary does so because someone thinks they have committed an offence and that offence has to be described in terms of the Law. Here is where the real problem starts, getting that accurate discription.

Offences in the Law have elements to them. Sometimes all the elements have to be in place, other times simply one of a series of alternative elements is sufficient. Take for example dangerous tackling in Law 10 (4) j which is probably the most misunderstood Law. Here you must establish that the player was lifted off the ground AND dropped or driven into the ground where the players head and or upper body comes into contact with the ground. Most punters and many refs see the tilt beyond the horrizontal as the key element, but it is not. It is quite acceptable for the player to be tilted past the horrizontal, but if he is not driven or dropped, instead lowered to the ground in a controlled manner, then no offence has taken place. Warburtons red card in the RWC semi comes to mind where he let his opponent come to the ground in a controlled slide. (That decision may have cost Wales its first RWC)

Until you sort the knowledge base out with those responsible for policing it, nothing can improve.
RJ

Getting rid of Bryce Lawrence today will be more effective than the previous 5 points put together.
- Dirty Socks
  
  I do not disagree with what you say, but I did see a report on an interview with him after his announcement. He claims his biggest mistake was letting JON’s pressure after the RWC loss to Ireland, get to him. He made a deliberate decision to let the RWC semi flow rather than nitpick as he had done in the pool match against Ireland. I assume RJ that you are an Australian, so we should be grateful for his misdeeds as he got us to a RWC semi final which we would not otherwise have made and the Boks can feel vindicated for their feeling of having been cheated.
Wilson

I wish to add is that currently only the player who has been sighted who is allowed to be present at the hearing. Therefore only the match day report is submitted outlining the grievance and nothing more is heard from the player or even a player rep who is often the person who has been infringed against. There is also no requirement for a neutral official to be used despite the fact that officials often only skype into proceedings. Surely for the same cost an neutral official should be used to insure any perception of bias is removed.

For example; SANZAR investigated a reported incident that left Force back-rower Matt Hodgson with concussion, unable to finish the game and in doubt for the following game with the Stormers in Durban. Cheetahs second rower Andries Ferreira was cited for foul play. Despite the clear footage showing that Hodgson was grabbed by the head and rammed into the ground head first knocking him unconscious; the judiciary listened to the testimony of Ferreira and decided he didn’t have a case to answer as he claimed to not have been aware that he had made contact with Hodgson’s head. Noone represented Hodgson on the day so based on a convincing testimony of Ferreira to a South African official he walked away without a case to answer.

Firstly, why is a South African officiating over a South African? Especially as he skyped into proceedings on this occasion which means for the same costs a Kiwi official could have skyped in.

Secondly, why is only testimony from the offending player delivered to the official and not the same opportunity given to the player who was infringed against? Surely the team manager or another representative would have been happy to skype in to provide relevant testimony. I assume that as Hodgson was knocked out for over a minute that he wouldn’t have had any recollection of the incident to add to discussions. Having only the written report of the match day official representing the argument of the player infringed against is far less dynamic an convincing than a human representative. Why are we providing an unequal opportunity for representation to the possible infringing player over the player infringed against?